Universal, free childcare - is it a solution?

[KateMumsnet]

This week, Mumsnet Blogger Mummyisagadgetgeek reports back from an event organized by the thinktank Progress on the subject of universal childcare. Should they win the next election, Labour are considering it as a possible policy - so we thought it would be good to find out what it was all about.

So: read her blog report from the event, tell us what you think here on the thread - and if you blog, let us know about it. We'll be tweeting posts next week.

[BoffinMum]

More sophisticated data source here

Office of National Statistics

[BoffinMum]

"For the tax year ending 5 April 2011 the median gross annual earnings for full-time employees were
£26,100. For men, the figure was £28,400, while for women the figure was £22,600".

So they have combined the salaries of Mr and Mrs Average to come up with the arbitrary figure of £50k for withdrawal of child benefit ... however there is absolutely no allowance made for regional variations, so the couple on this kind of money in South Wales or the North East will be a lot more affluent than a similar couple in Croydon on the same income, simple because of fixed overheads of going to work. I think that is my main problem with the policy.

[Xenia]

BM, made me laugh and I just did the test and was very disappointed it only went up to top 1%....

My point on these issues is that as a single mother in full time work on £50,000 with a loan on a £150k flat in Luton to pay and £13,000 nursery fees a year for one child only, no maintenance from the father and commuting in you have about the same net income as a benefits claimant mother in Luton and your flat may well not be much nicer than hers. That is what the poor don't realise. They see this £50k figure and forget that you pay heaps of tax on that .

Miss 50k pays

£14,219 tax
£13,000 full time nursery place Let us assume she has one child
£13,500 repayment mortgage 150,000 5% 25 years
£2000 train fares

Total £42,719

Net £7281 = £140 a week. that is less than if you use benefits calculators for single mothers. She might get a tax credit though but even so miss big bucks £50k is about on the same net as mis lazy on benefits after work and housing costs.

Howeer if she can get promotion to £100k and in 25 years she will have paid off her mortgage so live rent free and also in about 5 years she will have no childcare or not so much to pay for so all in all I would argue work always pays.

We will leave her to make a packed lunch, not buy work clothes or socialise at work but she may need some childcare costs and she will get no council tax benefit unlike her idle twin on benefits. We will assume she pays nothing into a pension and opts out of the new rules.

[BoffinMum]

Work pays simply because women sitting around at home are statistically more likely to suffer poor health and discrimination.

[LifesAHappySong]

Why do some people assume that being a SAHM is a 'luxury'? My DH is on a pretty good salary but we don't get any extra help in tax credits etc, live in one of the most expensive areas of the country and have very high commuting costs. We really struggle some months. If I were to return to work I'd be about a couple of hundred pounds a month better off after childcare. But with the additional costs of working eg petrol, clothes, etc, let alone the loss of flexibility you do need with a small child, it's really not worth it. When baby no. 2 comes along it definitely won't be. The government needs to sort out this ludicrous situation where some women are penalised for their husbands' seemingly high earnings (which are not always so in reality as explained by Xenia above) so they can't return to work, whilst other women are forced into work for the sake of receiving tax credits etc when they would rather look after their own children than be paid a pittance for a job they dont want to do and has no prospects and topped up in ctc/ wtc etc for someone else to look after them.

[Xenia]

..and remember some women earn 2xz and 10x their husbands as I did so we could change the text above to


"some men are penalised for their wives' seemingly high earnings .. so they can't return to work whilst other men are forced into work for the sake of receiving tax credits etc..."

Let us not be sexist. In 2013 lots of women out earn men. In fact under 30 women do earn more than men.

[LifesAHappySong]

Fair point. I totally agree, unfortunately though it is women who are disproportionately affected by this. Whether this is a pay gap issue or biological issue i.e. women have babies and breastfeed, I don't know. But yes it definitely applies both ways.

[Bonsoir]

There is a school of thought that says that parenting, and managing relationships, ought to be easy and fall into place without much thought or effort. Any other situation is "wrong".

Personally I don't subscribe to that theory at all. Develop your children in the modern world unconsciously at your peril (same goes for your relationship with your partner)

[morethanpotatoprints]

Well I would rather work at my family relationships, keep my loving husband happy as this in return keeps me happy. I believe it is a biological issue for the maternal amongst us. Some women have no qualms about working and using childcare, others would rather die than leave their dc. We are all different. The nicest thing my older dss have said to me is they really appreciate the sacrifices we made for them and the fact we didn't use childcare and were always there if they needed us. Thats the best feeling of satisfaction and appreciation we could have hoped for. So not every woman is interested in working or careers and childcare. It doesn't make us boring, or mean we have a life of drudgery, it is very fullfilling for some.

[WidowWadman]

morethan whoopdeedo, don't you have a lovely life?

You know what, working full time and having a loving relationship with a happy husband and happy children is not mutually exclusive.

And your children telling you how much they appreciate that you didn't use childcare? Now there's a surprise, being raised in the belief that childcare is inferior at best and really incompatible with being there for your children....

If you're happy with your choice, that's great and all, but that doesn't mean that it's the only or best choice. And it's pretty damn awful if it ceases being a choice but families are forced into that set up because working incurrs more costs than not working.

I find your smugness quite offensive to be honest.

[Italiana]

We are deviating a lot from the original question 'is universal free childcare the solution'?
Some parents use childcare others don't...at some stage even non working mums use pre school education to get children 'ready' for the school environmemt..even if at 3 years it is a bit too early

lets have some positive constructive suggestions on how you feel childcare should be addressed

[morethanpotatoprints]

Widow.

I'm sorry if I hit a nerve, I was responding to the post above which spoke about sustaining and developing relationships. Which in my book are affected if you are not there for that person/ those people, but are running round like headless chickens, trying to be all things to all people including your boss. Because I think sustaining relationships, bringing your children up yourself are mutually exclusive, you think I'm smug. No, I'm just happy and so are my family.

[ElenMumsnetBloggers]

Just want to add this excellent post by a single mum into the mix - she blogs about the benefit trap that affects lots of single parents who can't afford to pay for full-time childcare...

[Bonsoir]

That's a good blog post. But focusing on the problems that single parents face when trying to make a profit after the costs of working detracts, IMVHO, from the wider issue of any parent trying to make a profit after factoring in the full the costs of working. Second earners who return to work often do so at little or no profit (and even at a loss).

The issue of making work pay in a society that expects huge availability from workers, with correspondingly reduced availability for family responsibilities, is a massive and widespread one.

[WidowWadman]

"but focusing on the problems that single parents face when trying to make a profit after the costs of working detracts, IMVHO, from the wider issue of any parent trying to make a profit after factoring in the full the costs of working. Second earners who return to work often do so at little or no profit (and even at a loss)."

What bonsoir says is very true.

[Xenia]

First of all you must split the cost of childcare between the two workers (where there are two of you) and then look at the long term investment - we worked at a loss one of us for a year and nearly 30 years on amazing riches have flown from that both in terms of relationships with chidlren and in terms of money; obviously if someone will never get no at work over 230 years because they have few qualifications or are pretty useless or not hard working then it may not be worth putting the effort into work).

On this one: "Well I would rather work at my family relationships, keep my loving husband happy as this in return keeps me happy. I believe it is a biological issue for the maternal amongst us. Some women have no qualms about working and using childcare, others would rather die than leave their dc. We are all different. The nicest thing my older dss have said to me is they really appreciate the sacrifices we made for them and the fact we didn't use childcare and were always there if they needed us. Thats the best feeling of satisfaction and appreciation we could have hoped for. So not every woman is interested in working or careers and childcare. It doesn't make us boring, or mean we have a life of drudgery, it is very fullfilling for some. "

(a) Gosh I am so maternal and worked full time. I adored breastfeeding, bonding, all those hours of just staring at such a gorgeous baby but those of us who are successful and can manage work and home (many women are pretty incompetent so cannot ) combine that with work and being home. Enjoying work does not mean you are not maternal.

(b) Also most parents who work are always there if their children need them. My oldest 3 have graduated. They would say they have benefited hugely from working parents.

Obviously it is good if children are pleased with how things are and many children of working mothers adore that their mothers have successful careers, love to talk about the work , I do genuinely love having the work issues in common with my daughters now and look at the sexism in the post if i turn it around - would you say this about a man?

Some men have no qualms about working and using childcare, others would rather die than leave their dc. We are all different. The nicest thing my older dss have said to me is they really appreciate the sacrifices we made for them and the fact we didn't use childcare and were always there if they needed us. Thats the best feeling of satisfaction and appreciation we could have hoped for. So not every man is interested in working or careers and childcare. It doesn't make us boring, or mean we have a life of drudgery, it is very fullfilling for some. "

[morethanpotatoprints]

Wow Xenia.

I knew you worked in magic, but being in two places at once. Bringing your children up whilst working at the same time. Now thats magic. Oh you are so funny . I forgot working parents have skills of teleporting themselves between home and work, to be there for their kids full time.

When men give birth to babies, I might start taking your comments on sexism seriously.
So how did you manage to do all this xenia and of course keep a loving marriage together?

[Xenia]

So don't you think fathers bring up children? This is weird. Of coruse working parents bring up their children. We don't send them to China for 18 years and then see them.

Don't the housewives on the thread send children to nursery school and then full time school at 4? Do you see that as not bringing them up? Do you do attachment parenting and home schooling and sleep with the child skin on skin every night?

[morethanpotatoprints]

Xenia.

I do H.ed yes, but no I don't do attachment parenting. Some dads do sah to bring up children, I know a couple. One is a single parent the other sah as his wife earns more than he did. They both see the value in raising their children themselves without intervention from other parties, of course excepting school. Alot of children don't go to nursey, mine didn't. Many parents opt for pre school prior to starting school.
I don't think working parents send their children to China, a nanny, child minder or nursery nurse raises them whilst their parents work, don't they?
If both parents work full time and dcs care is provided for the majority of hours during the day by somebody else, the parents are hardly raising their dc, obviously.
Now theres nothing wrong with this if this is your choice, but please don't try and make out you do the same as a sahp and work full time. Unless as I suggested you are a magician.

[Xenia]

It always felt quite a lot of hours to me. Babies get up at 5. You have it permanently attached breastfeeding until you leave at 8am and you're back at 6 and it is cuddling up against you for hours. Home at 6 . I never felt the hours were few (but then we never really had sleeping babies) and then you're with them all weekend. I still regard it as bringing up. Do you think your husband does not bring up his children then?

Also doesn't a child gain hugely from having several influences in its life? I am sure our 5 have.

Plenty of mothers are home pretty much ignore their chidlren and do an awful job. You just cannot generalise.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Why wouldn't they have several influences in their life if they had a sahp.
If you think a few hours a day is a lot of raising your children think what all day is like. That's raising children.
Yes my dh helps to raise his children, we do it between us. One of us is responsible for them at different times. We jointly raise our dc.
Xenia, how often did you see your dc and husband when they weren't babies?

[blueshoes]

potato: "If both parents work full time and dcs care is provided for the majority of hours during the day by somebody else, the parents are hardly raising their dc, obviously."

By that test, I suppose parents of older children who have a lot of afterschool activities would not be raising their children then, because that would otherwise be magic.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Blueshoes.

I guess that would depend on who accompanied them, attended the parent'/carers open evenings, etc. nanny, child minder or parent.

[VintageRainBoots]

Who cares who is "raising" them (and during which hours) as long as the children are happy, well taken care of, and raised well? The outcome is far more important than who gets credit for it.

[blueshoes]

potato, you are clutching at straws. By your definition, most teenagers would not be raised by their parents.